The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rijh20

Experienced incivility undermines the positive

effects of job autonomy on mental and physical
health

Andrew R. Timming, Joseph A. Carpini, Tracey M. Hirst, Amy Wei Tian & Lies
Notebaert

To cite this article: Andrew R. Timming, Joseph A. Carpini, Tracey M. Hirst, Amy Wei Tian & Lies
Notebaert (2024) Experienced incivility undermines the positive effects of job autonomy on
mental and physical health, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35:4,
563-586, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2023.2250715

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2250715

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 01 Sep 2023. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1828 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
2024, VOL. 35, NO. 4, 563–586
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2250715

Experienced incivility undermines the positive

effects of job autonomy on mental and physical
health
Andrew R. Timminga, Joseph A. Carpinib , Tracey M. Hirstc,
Amy Wei Tiand and Lies Notebaerte
a
Professor of Management, School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;
b
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management UWA Business School, Perth, Australia;
c
UWA Business School, Perth, Australia; dHuman Resource Management School of Management
and Marketing Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; ePsychology, University
of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Integrating insights from conservation of resources theory Job autonomy; mental
related to both the positive effects of resources and the det- health; physical health;
rimental effects of resource loss, this paper examines the experienced incivility;
effect of job autonomy (an organizational-level resource) on public sector
subjective physical pain as mediated by mental health, with
experienced workplace incivility (a social stressor) included
as a boundary condition. Drawing from the results of a
state-wide survey of local government professionals (N = 289),
we test a moderated mediation model that estimates the
relationships amongst job autonomy, mental health, and
physical pain, at differing levels of experienced incivility.
Mental health is found to fully mediate the negative rela-
tionship between job autonomy and physical pain. When
the moderating effect of workplace incivility is incorporated
into the model, higher levels of uncivil behavior weaken the
otherwise positive and significant effect of job autonomy on
mental health. However, the relationship between mental
health and physical pain does not depend on levels of work-
place incivility. This research has important implications for
the management of physical and mental health at work. In
particular, the results point to a need to develop human
resource policies and practices that both promote job auton-
omy and tackle experiences of workplace incivility, particu-
larly in local governments.

CONTACT Andrew R. Timming andrew.timming@rmit.edu.au Professor of Management, School of

Management, RMIT University, Building 80, Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2250715.
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the
author(s) or with their consent.
564 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

Experienced incivility undermines the positive effects of job

autonomy on mental and physical health
Human resource (HR) management practices—depending on how
(in)effectively they are implemented—carry the potential to either pos-
itively or negatively shape employee mental health and well-being
(Guest, 2017; Kowalski & Loretto, 2017). Research has demonstrated
that effectively implemented job autonomy-enhancing HR policies can
improve employee mental health (Park & Searcy, 2012). Less well
known is the extent to which those same HR policies concomitantly
impact on employee physical health. This void is surprising given the
close association between mental and physical health and the signifi-
cant economic costs associated with pain. Physical pain is a major
source of lost workplace productivity and it is strongly shaped by
socio-relational factors (Melzack, 1999). It is commonly linked to psy-
chological distress (Darr & Johns, 2008) and musculoskeletal disorders,
which are the most common causes of sickness-related work absences
and disability pensions in many Western countries (Fjell et al., 2007),
and, in serious cases, can result in costly inpatient treatment (Malec,
Cayner, Harvey, & Timming, 1981). Research from across 16 countries
suggests that the economic costs of pain are estimated to be between
3% and 10% of gross domestic product (Breivik et al., 2006). In
Australia, the cost of chronic pain is estimated at $48.3 billion in lost
productivity (Deloitte, 2019).
Second to musculoskeletal disorders, stress and stress-related diseases
are the next most common cause of health problems in the workplace,
and are estimated to cause half of all work absences (Cox et al., 2000).
High levels of stress can contribute to work-related accidents, employee
turnover and presenteeism (Marcatto et al., 2016). Work-related stress is
a particular issue in the public sector, where rates of high psychological
distress exceed those in the private sector (EU-OHSA). A multitude of
explanations for this discrepancy have been proposed, including high
work demands, greater prevalence of fixed term/casual employment
(Jarman et al., 2014), and the higher proportion of women in the public
workforce who are at an increased risk of factors contributing to poor
mental health (Holmlund et al., 2022). Similarly, pain arising from mus-
culoskeletal disorders is highly prevalent in public sector employees
(Roquelaure et al., 2006). Risk factors for experiencing pain among pub-
lic sector employees include excessive workload and negative working
relationships (Marcatto et al., 2016). Thus, recognizing the importance of
mental and physical health at work, in this study we build on Hobfoll’s
(2001) conservation of resources theory (COR) as the overarching frame-
work, and examine how beneficial resources such as job autonomy will
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 565

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

help employees to gain resources and improve employees mental health,

which in turn may reduce the likelihood of undesirable subjective phys-
ical pain. Furthermore, we also consider how experienced incivility, a
resource loss representing a salient social stressor and boundary condi-
tion, can conditionally influence the impact of job autonomy on mental
health, and in turn, on physical pain. The study’s proposed moderated
mediation model is depicted in Figure 1.
By integrating research on job autonomy, experienced incivility,
mental health, and physical pain, we hope to provide a more compre-
hensive understanding of how employees’ mental and physical health
are shaped by organizational resources (e.g. job autonomy) and the
experience of incivility at work, separately and jointly. In doing so, our
study offers both theoretical and empirical contributions to the litera-
ture. Theoretically, we echo the concern that resource loss is more
salient than resource gain (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Focusing only on how
resource gain impacts employees’ mental and physical health poten-
tially misses the influence of resource loss on these outcomes.
Addressing this concern, we take an integrated approach to consider
the effect of resource gain and loss on employee mental and physical
health. Specifically, we focus on job autonomy as a form of positive
resource gain inasmuch as job autonomy improves employee well-being.
We focus on experienced work incivility as a resource loss because
negative interactions with other people are likely to pose a salient
demand on personal resources (Park et al., 2014). Incivility is a com-
monly reported workplace experience with over two-thirds of employ-
ees in the U.S. report experiencing workplace incivility (Cortina et al.,
2001). By taking an integrated approach, our study provides new
insights into how and when job autonomy can directly impact employ-
ees’ mental health and, indirectly, physical health.
Empirically, addressing the call that resource gain and loss must be under-
stood in context (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018), we focus on
local government as a less well studied, but arguably ideal, context to
566 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

understand the role of resource gain and loss on employees’ mental and
physical health. Our choice of the local government sector is motivated by
three main reasons. First, local governments have been subjected to unrelent-
ing reforms for decades (Grant & Drew, 2017) that often include austerity,
amalgamations, organizational restructures, and adaptations to meet increas-
ing community expectations (ALGA, 2018; Rayner & Lawton, 2018). These
reforms have often involved altering organization-level resources, including
employee job autonomy. Second, local government employees tend to suffer
disproportionately from a range of mental health problems (Hurley et al.,
2016) and debilitating physical ailments (Khubchandani & Price, 2015). Third,
workplace incivility is a particularly common behavior in the public sector
and in local governments (Hubert & Van Veldhoven, 2001; Tsuno et al.,
2017), making it an appropriate socio-relational stressor boundary condition
for our study. Consistent with our theoretical model derived from COR the-
ory, social stressors have been found to be associated with a greater experi-
ence of pain in people working in the public sector (Fjell et al., 2007). In this
light, the local government sector, in all its dysfunction, provides an ideal
context in which to examine empirically the effects of interest in our study.
The present research has practical relevance because scholars increasingly
understand that physical pain linked to work can have a significant deleteri-
ous effect on wider life satisfaction (McNamee & Mendolia, 2014) and on the
economy (Gaskin & Richard, 2012). Our study makes an important and orig-
inal contribution to ongoing debates surrounding the social determinants of
health, both mental and physical, especially in the context of human resource
management in the public sector. We demonstrate that managerial decisions
on the social organization of job autonomy can influence the employee expe-
rience of physical pain, albeit indirectly through mental health, and we also
show that experiences of workplace incivility can significantly attenuate the
positive health-related benefits of job autonomy. Our results have important
implications for the management of physical pain in the local government
sector and beyond. This research identifies work-related targets for HR inter-
ventions designed to reduce the individual, organizational, and wider societal
burdens associated with physical pain at work.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Conservation of resources theory
We draw on COR because it provides a unique framework to help under-
stand why individuals are motivated to protect their current resources
and acquire new resources (Hobfoll, 2001, 2011). Central to COR is the
notion that individuals have a limited pool of resources which they are
motivated to retain, obtain, and protect. Resources are defined as ‘any-
thing perceived by the individual to help attain his or her goals’
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 567

(Halbesleben et al., 2014, p. 6). Within this broad definition, scholars

have positioned a variety of constructs as resources. Constructive or
organizational resources arise from the content of work such as job
autonomy (Diestel & Schmidt, 2012) and job security (Selenko et al.,
2013), whereas social resources, including social support (Diestel &
Schmidt, 2012; Liu et al., 2020), arise from the broader work context
(Hobfoll et al., 2018; Nielsen et al., 2017). Consistent with the theoretical
tenets of COR, resources across these studies have generally been nega-
tively related to indicators of stress (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Indeed, a
meta-analysis of individual, group, leader, and organizational resources
found a positive relationship between resources (at all levels) and
employee performance and well-being (Nielsen et al., 2017).
Although resource accumulation and protection are important, COR
also posits that individuals are particularly sensitive to resource loss
(Holmgreen et al., 2017), an effect grounded in evolutionary psychology
and supported by meta-analytic results (Baumeister et al., 2021).
According to COR, stress is an outcome of perceived threats to existing
resources, actual loss of resources, or the failure to acquire valued
resources (e.g. health; sense of purpose; Hobfoll et al., 2018). That is,
when stressors exceed the capacity of the employee to cope due to a lack
of available resources, the individual experiences resource depletion that
can and often does result in negative psychological and physiological
outcomes (Hobfoll, 2011; 2018). Despite the centrality of resource loss in
COR, ‘it is remarkable how the consequences of such a pivotal concept
still remain underinvestigated’ (Halbesleben et al., 2014, p. 1345).
The present study seeks to extend COR theory by integrating both the
positive effect of job autonomy—an organizational resource ‘inherent in the
way work is organized, designed, and managed’, and the resource loss of
experienced work incivility—a feature of the social context in which work
occurs that characterizes the quality of information and interaction between
individuals (Nielsen et al., 2017, p. 103). Although COR has been a predom-
inant theory used to understand the experience of burnout and employee
stress (Halbesleben et al., 2014), the present study extends COR to consider
the implications of job autonomy on physical pain, within the broader con-
text of resource loss arising from experiences of work incivility, particularly
as it pertains to the Australian local government sector. We propose subjec-
tive mental well-being as the mediating process, as further explained below.

Job autonomy

Research investigating the relationship between work and the experience

of pain has largely focused on the effect of the physical characteristics of
the workplace (e.g. how work is organized and designed) on
568 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

musculoskeletal issues (Carpini & Parker, 2016; McBeth et al., 2003). For
example, studies identified work tasks such as heavy lifting, kneeling, and
standing for lengthy periods to be positively related to a higher risk of
experiencing physical pain (McBeth et al., 2003). Diverging from the
physical demands of work content that may deplete individual resources,
the present study examines job autonomy as an important psychological
characteristic of work design (Humphrey et al., 2007). Job autonomy
refers to the extent to which employees are delegated discretion over
when, where, and how to carry out their tasks (Grant & Parker, 2009).
A great deal of research has demonstrated the positive effect of job
autonomy on employees’ affective and motivational outcomes such as job
satisfaction, employee engagement, organizational commitment, and
intrinsic work motivation (Chung-Yan, 2010; Humphrey et al., 2007;
Wegman et al., 2018), and behavioral outcomes such as task performance
and innovative work behaviors (Carpini et al., 2017; De Spiegelaere et al.,
2016). While limited, extant research specifically in the public sector also
suggests that job autonomy significantly influences absenteeism (Kivimäki
et al., 1997; North et al., 1993). As mentioned previously, the experience
of pain is associated with absenteeism (Birnbaum et al., 2011). We thus
suggest that it is possible that job autonomy may be an important orga-
nizational resource related to the experience of pain.
Despite a burgeoning body of literature on the psychological and
behavioral benefits of job autonomy, little research has investigated
whether, how, and when job autonomy, as an artifact of human resource
management policy and practice (Nielsen et al., 2017), may be associated
with physical pain at work (Nixon et al., 2011). Within the extant liter-
ature on the effects of job autonomy on employee well-being, research
suggests that job autonomy is negatively related to physical health (e.g.
Glaser et al., 2015), and positively related to mental health (Thompson
& Prottas, 2006; Wood et al., 2020). For example, Glaser et al. (2015)
report an indirect influence of job autonomy on musculoskeletal pain via
emotional irritation, although the direct effect of job autonomy on phys-
ical pain was not significant. Wood et al. (2020) found that job auton-
omy reduces employees’ depression at work. An earlier review by Nixon
et al. (2011) also reports that a lack of job autonomy leads to an increase
of physical symptoms such as backaches and headaches. However, to
date, the relationship between job autonomy and both mental health and
physical pain remains understudied. In the present study, we propose an
indirect relationship linking job autonomy and physical pain via the
effect of mental health. The underlying logic is that job autonomy gives
work meaning (Wegman et al., 2018) and allows the employee to expe-
rience competence and self-control, thus promoting psychological
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 569

well-being (Nielsen et al., 2017) and, in turn, improved physical health.

Therefore, the managerial delegation of job autonomy may help improve
mental health, and this bolstered mental health potentially reduces the
experience of physical pain.
Hypothesis 1: Mental health mediates the negative relationship between job auton-
omy and physical pain.

The moderating role of experienced incivility

The extent to which the social context may be a powerful resource at

work has been well established. For example, Halbesleben’s (2006)
meta-analysis on source of social support and burnout found support
that social support at work is particularly helpful in attenuating emo-
tional exhaustion and building personal resources. While existing studies
have advanced our understanding of the impact of positive social sup-
port, less well known is the influence of negative social interactions. It is
in this sense that we echo Hobfoll et al. (2018, p. 1052) observation that
‘resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource gain’. This
means that while positive social support may be a useful resource, schol-
ars need to take a more balanced view of resource gains and losses.
Thus, in the present study, we examine the potential interaction effect of
job autonomy as a resource gain and negative social interaction as a
resource loss on employees’ mental health and experience of physi-
cal pain.
In the context of COR theory, researchers have suggested that stressful
interactions with other people in the workplace can negatively impact the
relationship between job autonomy and mental health. For example,
research has shown that interpersonal stressors such as experiences of
incivility increase work demands by consuming both cognitive and emo-
tional resources (Fasanya & Dada, 2016; Liu et al., 2020; Yao et al.,
2020a; Yao et al., 2020b). This is because the defense mechanisms used
to deal with these interactions deplete personal resources and reduce the
degree to which people feel they have control over situations, leading to
feelings of failure and detachment (Park et al., 2014). Experienced inci-
vility is defined as ‘low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent
to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect’
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Incivility encompasses a constella-
tion of behaviors: rudeness, disrespect, derogatory remarks, isolating
actions, insensitivity, a general lack of regard for people, and the erosion
of ‘moral’ standards and relational norms in the workplace (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005; Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson
et al., 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2009). Examples of incivility at work
570 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

include: interrupting while another person is talking; gossiping about a

colleague; not returning greetings; sending a rude or demeaning email;
excluding a colleague from social or work-related meetings; ignoring a
request; and undermining a colleague’s credibility (Blau & Andersson,
2005; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 2001).
Incivility is a common dysfunction in organizations. Not only is inci-
vility common, but recent meta-analyses suggest it is negatively related
to both psychological and physical well-being (Han et al., 2022). From a
resource loss perspective, experiences of incivility deplete personal
resources (Zhu et al., 2021) and undermine perceptions of control
(Kabat-Farr et al., 2018; Vargas et al., 2021). Victims of incivility have
been shown to disengage from work, be less productive, and exhibit
strained and difficult workplace relationships (Pearson et al., 2001;
Pearson & Porath, 2009). These employees also show an increased prob-
ability of resigning, with the likelihood of job turnover growing signifi-
cantly as incivility events become more frequent (Cortina et al., 2001;
Pearson & Porath, 2009). Indeed, participants of Pearson et al. (2001, p.
1404) study report ‘being “depressed”, “down”, “disappointed”, “moody”,
“in a funk”, “dissed”, “irritated”, “in a black cloud”, and “hurt”’, all of
which are consistent with indicators of poor mental health. Integrating
the principle of resource loss from COR theory, we propose the social
stressor of experienced incivility will attenuate the otherwise positive
relationship between job autonomy (an organizational resource) and
employee mental health:
Hypothesis 2a: Experienced workplace incivility moderates the positive relationship
between job autonomy and mental health, such that higher levels of experienced
workplace incivility weaken the positive effect.

We further extend COR theory by examining the potential for experi-

enced workplace incivility as a social stressor to moderate the relation-
ship between employee mental health and physical pain. Consistent with
COR theory, work social stressors can directly reduce both the social and
instrumental support derived from colleagues, and may in turn reduce
the likelihood that an employee will seek out social support (Gilin Oore
et al., 2010). Consequently, this exacerbates the effects of social stressors
because employees cannot meet workload demands, especially in work
contexts where working with others is essential. Consistent with this
view, social stressors have been found to be positively associated with a
greater experience of pain in people working in the public sector (Fjell
et al., 2007) and exacerbate the effect of job stress on physical health
symptoms (Gilin Oore et al., 2010). This adds a new meaning to the
notion that experienced workplace incivility is a form of ‘injury’
(Hershcovis & Barling, 2007, p. 273) that extends beyond psychological
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 571

harm, potentially to physical pain at work. Integrating these insights

together with COR, we propose that the negative relationship between
employee mental health and physical pain will be weaker when experi-
ences of incivility are high as the personal resource of mental health will
be depleted by the social stressor of incivility.
Hypothesis 2b: Workplace incivility moderates the negative relationship between
mental health and physical pain, such that higher levels of incivility weaken the
protective effect of mental health.

Integrated moderated mediation model

Bring together our hypotheses on job autonomy as predictors of mental

health and, in turn, physical pain, and the moderating role of experi-
enced workplace incivility, we hypothesize that experienced work inci-
vility (a salient social stressor) will moderate both the indirect
relationship between job autonomy (an organizational resource) and
physical pain, as mediated by mental health, as well as the direct rela-
tionship between mental health and physical pain. When individuals
experience more workplace incivility, such negative experiences are
likely to weaken the otherwise positive and significant effect of job
autonomy on mental health, and in turn, physical health. We focus on
experienced workplace incivility as an interpersonal stressor condition
for our study because it has been reported as a particularly common
behavior in local governments (Hubert & Van Veldhoven, 2001; Tsuno
et al., 2017). High levels of experienced incivility are often attributed
to requirements for local government employees to manage the needs
and preferences of multiple simultaneous internal and external stake-
holder groups (Timming et al., 2019). Consistent with our theoretical
model derived from COR theory, social stressors have been found to
be associated with a greater experience of pain in people working in
the public sector (Fjell et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between job autonomy and physical pain,
as mediated by mental health, is moderated by experienced workplace incivility
such that a higher level of experienced workplace incivility will (a) weaken the
positive relationship between job autonomy and mental health and (b) strengthen
the negative relationship between mental health and physical pain.

Methods
Sample
We collected data from local government professionals in Western
Australia. The design of the survey instrument was informed by a
series of focus groups. The survey was administered to all 139 CEOs,
572 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

who forwarded it to their professional staff occupying a range of posi-

tions, including HR professionals, project officers, asset managers, plan-
ners, and analysts, among other director-level roles. In total, we received
289 completed questionnaires, including 93 CEOs, for an overall CEO
response rate of 67%. Amongst all participants, 47% were female and
32% were located in the State’s metropolitan region (Perth). The major-
ity of participants identified as white (96%), in a relationship (84%),
and with a bachelor’s degree or higher (72%). The average age is
between 46 and 50 years old, the average tenure in their current orga-
nization is 3-5 years, and the average tenure in local government overall
is 8-9 years.

Measures

Physical pain
The Freiburg Complaint List (Fahrenberg, 1995) was used to measure
subjective physical pain. Respondents were asked about the extent to
which they feel: (1) neck pain, (2) back pain, (3) shoulder pain, and (4)
leg pain. The response scale ranges from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost every
day). The Cronbach’s alpha is .82.

Job autonomy
The five-item autonomy sub-scale of the Work Design Questionnaire
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) was used to measure job autonomy. This
scale asks respondents to rate the extent to which respondents can make
autonomous decisions at work. The respondents were asked about the
extent to which their jobs: (i) give them a chance to use personal initia-
tive or judgment, (ii) allow them to make a lot of decisions on their
own, (iii) provide them with significant autonomy in making decisions,
(iv) allow them to make decisions about what methods they use to com-
plete their work, and (v) allow them to decide on how to go about doing
their work. The response scale ranges from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The
Cronbach’s alpha is .91.

Mental health
The five-item Mental Health Inventory (Cuijpers et al., 2009) was used
to measure mental health. This scale asks respondents to rate their
mood over the last year. The respondents were asked to assess the extent
to which they have felt: (1) nervous, (2) calm and peaceful, (3) down-
hearted and blue, (4) happy, and (5) so down in the dumps that nothing
could cheer you up. Negative responses were re-coded so that all items
are on a scale of 1 (None) to 5 (All the time), such that higher scores
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 573

are indicative of higher levels of mental health. The Cronbach’s

alpha is .83.

Experienced workplace incivility

This variable was measured using Cortina et al. (2001) ten-item work-
place incivility scale. Respondents were asked to assess how often some-
one: (1) put them down or was condescending, (2) paid little attention
to them or shows little interest in their opinions, (3) made demeaning,
rude, or derogatory remarks about them, (4) addressed them in unpro-
fessional terms, (5) ignored or excluded them, (6) doubted their judg-
ment, (7) made unwanted attempts to draw them into a personal
discussion, (8) ignored or failed to speak to them, (9) made jokes at
their expense, and (10) yelled, shouted, or swore at them. Responses
were recorded from 1 (once or twice a year) to 5 (every day). The
Cronbach’s alpha is .91.

Control variables
Consistent with best practice (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016), we included
six control variables that are both theoretically and empirically related to
our focal variables. Demographically, we included age, gender (1= women,
0 = men), race (1= white, 0 = minority), and marital status (1 = married or
defacto partnership, 0 = single). Research has shown that women (Yao
et al., 2022), younger employees, and minority groups (Han et al., 2022)
are likely to experience greater levels of workplace incivility. Marital sta-
tus has been demonstrated to be related to chronic health concerns such
that singles were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke
death (Wong et al., 2018). Additionally, we control for participants’ job
positions and residential regions. Job position (1= CEO, 0 = non-CEO) is
included because those in positions of formal authority may enjoy

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations amongst study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age – – –
2. Gender .44 .50 −0.34** –
3. Race .97 .18 .14* −0.07 –
4. Marital Status .84 .37 .12 −0.22** .11 –
5. Region 1.67 .47 −0.00 −0.02 −0.08 −0.02 –
6. CEO-status .36 .48 .34** −0.53** .04 .07 .15* –
7. Job Autonomy 3.84 .76 .17** −0.17** .20** .18** −0.07 .15* –
8. Mental Health 3.76 .61 .05 .01 −0.03 −0.05 −0.06 −0.03 .31** –
9. Experienced 1.48 .61 .02 −0.16* −0.03 .06 −0.01 .15* −0.13* −0.43** –
Incivility
10. Physical Pain 2.07 .89 −0.05 .12 −0.10 .05 −0.00 −0.14* −0.09 −0.28** .15*
Note. Age was measured categorically.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
574 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

increased psychological well-being (Kifer et al., 2013) and have greater

decision-making autonomy at work. Residential region (urban = 1 and
rural = 0) is included because research suggests that those living in
urban areas are at increased risk of depressive symptoms vis-à-vis those
living in rural communities (Purtle et al., 2019). To ensure full transpar-
ency and enhance the generalizability of our results, we also report the
results without controls as additional footnotes.

Results
Descriptive statistics, standard deviations, and correlations are presented
in Table 1. We began by conducting a series of confirmatory factor anal-
yses (CFA) to establish the distinctiveness of our study variables. The
hypothesized four-factor model fit the data well, χ2 (183) = 420.34, p <
.001, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .07. The baseline model, where
all items loaded onto a single factor, had poor model fit, χ2 (189) =
1845.49, p < .001, CFI = .42, RMSEA = .19, SRMR = .19, Δ χ2 (6) =
1425.10, p <.001. Table S1 contains additional alternative CFA models.
Given the self-reported nature of the data, we complemented our CFA
with an analysis of variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
An AVE provides an estimate of both convergent and discriminate valid-
ity with a .50 threshold. The mean convergent AVE coefficient was .57
(Min. = .51, Max. = .67), suggesting that the items loaded significantly
on their hypothesized factor. The mean discriminate AVE coefficient was
.08 (Min. = .00, Max. = .22) suggesting the factors were distinct from
one another. Together, these results support the distinctiveness of our
variables. Additionally, because Hypotheses 2a/b and 3 specify a

Table 2. Moderated mediation results.

Mental Health Physical Pain
Variable B (SE) 95% CIs B (SE) 95% CIs
Age .01 [−0.03, .04] .02 [−0.04, .07]
Gender −0.07 [−0.24, .09] .17 [−0.10, .45]
Race −0.26 [−0.64, .12] −0.58 [−1.20, .04]
Marital Status −0.10 [−0.29, .08] .14 [−0.17, .45]
Region −0.07 [−0.22, .07] −0.00 [−0.24, .24]
CEO-status −0.05 [−0.22, .13] −0.21 [−0.49, .07]
Job Autonomy .22 [13, .32] .09 [−0.08, .25]
Experienced Incivility −0.38 [−0.49, −0.27] .18 [−0.05, .40]
Mental Health −0.43 [−0.64, −0.21]
Job Autonomy x Experienced −0.30 [-0.47, −0.12]
Incivility
(first-stage)
Mental Health x Experienced .20 [−0.08, .48]
Incivility (second-stage)
R2 .30** .13**
Note. Coefficients are unstandardized. Standard errors are in parentheses.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .001.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 575

moderating effect, common method variance (CMV) is unlikely to sig-

nificantly influence the results or conclusions of this research because
‘finding significant interaction effects despite the influence of CMV in
the data set should be taken as strong evidence that an interaction effect
exists’ (Siemsen et al., 2010, p. 470).
Using mean score composites of our constructs, we tested our first-
and second-stage moderated mediation model using the SPSS PROCESS
macro (Model 58) (Hayes, 2017). PROCESS employs bootstrapping
(20,000) in testing the statistical significance of the hypothesized moder-
ated mediation paths. All continuous variables were mean centered in the
analyses (Hayes, 2017). Age, gender, race, marital status, job position,
and residential region were included as statistical controls. Table 2 reports
the results. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the indirect negative effect of
autonomy and physical pain was mediated by mental health (B = −0.12,
SE = .04, 95%CI [−0.21, −0.05]). Supporting Hypothesis 2a, experienced
workplace incivility attenuated the positive relationship between auton-
omy and mental health (B = −0.30, SE = .09, t = −3.33, p = .001). We
probed and visualized the nature of this interaction by plotting simple
slope regression lines of mental health regressed on job autonomy for
both low (−1SD from the mean) and high (+1SD from the mean) levels
of experienced work incivility. As depicted in Figure 2, job autonomy
was positively related to mental health when individuals reported low
workplace incivility (B = .40, p < .001), however, this relationship was
attenuated when experiences of incivility were high (B = .04, p = .58).
Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, experienced incivility did not moderate the

Figure 2. Interactive effects of job autonomy and experienced work incivility on mental
health.
576 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

positive relationship between mental health and physical pain (B = .20,

SE = .14, t = 1.42, p = .16). Finally, in support of Hypothesis 3a, incivility
moderated the indirect effect of autonomy on physical pain through
mental health (Index = .13, 95% CI = [.04, .24]); however, the index of
moderated mediation was not significant for the second-stage modera-
tion between mental health and physical pain (Index = .06, 95% CI =
[-0.02, .15]), thus Hypothesis 3b was not supported1.

Discussion
The present research integrated insights from COR to examine the poten-
tial positive effects of job autonomy (a resource) on local government
employees’ subjective physical pain, as mediated by their mental health,
while accounting for experienced workplace incivility—a salient social
contextual stressor (resource strain). Responding to calls for further
understanding of the role of resource gain and loss in predicting employ-
ees’ mental and physical health outcomes, our study shows that physical
pain is linked, albeit indirectly, to job autonomy, providing empirical
support for the notion that job autonomy (as a work-related resource)
can support better health outcomes, both mentally and physically (Lovallo,
2016; Melzack, 1999). However, for the benefit of job autonomy to be
fully realized, our study shows that social context is critical. That is, we
demonstrate that experienced workplace incivility (as a resource strain)
can deplete personal resources, resulting in negative health outcomes.
When individuals experience higher levels of workplace incivility, the
benefits of increased job autonomy are effectively neutralized.

Theoretical and empirical implications

Our study makes both theoretical and empirical contributions to the

COR literature. Theoretically, we take an integrated approach to under-
stand the separate and joint influence of resource gain and loss on
employees’ mental and physical health outcomes. While the positive
effect of job autonomy (as a resource gain) has been well established, less
is known about how potential resource loss can alter the effect of job
autonomy on employees’ health outcomes. Specifically, we contribute to
the literature by demonstrating the contingency effect of experienced
work incivility on the direct effect of job autonomy on mental health,
and the indirect effect of autonomy on physical health via the influence
of mental health. In doing so, we echo Hobfoll et al. (2018) observation
that it is important to have a broad understanding of the interplay of
resources gain and loss. It is particularly intriguing that experienced
workplace incivility appears to diminish the positive effect of job
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 577

autonomy on mental health. Thus, experienced workplace incivility is

likely to not only directly exhaust personal resources (Han et al., 2022),
but it also diminishes the positive effect of resource gain (i.e. job auton-
omy) on individuals’ mental and physical health outcomes. Under higher
levels of workplace incivility, individuals seem to benefit less from the
benefits of job autonomy in the workplace. Future studies should focus
on possible asymmetries in individuals’ responses to gains and losses. For
example, resources losses in some individuals might end up triggering
more detrimental outcomes (Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Empirically, we echo Hobfoll et al. (2018, p. 113) view that ‘COR theory
has to be viewed in context’ by focusing on an understudied sector—local
government—that is often characterized as having less job autonomy and
more workplace incivility. For example, even though job autonomy is
widely recognized within the organizational literature to be positively
related to individual job performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011;
Gao, 2015; Jacobsen & Bøgh Andersen, 2017; Kanat-Maymon & Reizer,
2017), its adoption in the public sector broadly, and in local government
more specifically, has been limited. The rigid bureaucracies endemic to
public administration (Barzelay, 1992) are perhaps less conducive to dele-
gating discretion over work tasks. Interestingly, our results suggest that
compared to non-CEOs, CEOs reported higher job autonomy and experi-
enced incivility, but lower physical health. This finding is consistent with
research indicating that leadership positions are associated with poorer
physical health (e.g. Glaser et al., 2015). Future research should consider
further unpacking leadership demands to better understand how leader-
ship positions influence both mental and physical health outcomes.

Practical implications

Our study has two practical implications for the management of human
resources in the local government sector. First and foremost, our results
align with extant research by confirming that job autonomy is associated
with desirable outcomes including better mental and physical health
(Nielsen et al., 2017). Thus, while the bureaucratic nature of local gover-
ment may make it difficult to strike a balance between a rigid system
and job autonomy, it is critical for HR practitioners and senior leaders
in local governments to design and implement HR polices that enable
employees to experience greater job autonomy. As demonstrated in this
research, job autonomy is linked to both improved mental and physical
health outcomes, and as such employee well-being can be maximized,
and health-related costs minimized simultaneously. One potential way of
increasing job autonomy is through job enrichment. Job enrichment
involves the vertical expansion of a job through increased responsibility
578 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

and control over work decisions and processes (Dwyer & Fox, 2000).
Enriching the jobs of local government employees may be useful in bal-
ancing bureaucratic requirements with jobs that provide greater job
resources. Increasing job autonomy may also prove a useful job design
strategy to support employees experiencing a mental health issue, physi-
cal disability, or who are returning to work. Although job enrichment is
a useful strategy, prior research suggests optimal physical health out-
comes are achieved when jobs are moderately enriched and may result
in detrimental physical health when over-enriched (Fried et al., 2013).
Second, the HR function in local government must proactively tackle
workplace incivility to sustain those benefits. Local governments may
have opted not to address workplace incivility in the past due to ambi-
guity over whether harm was intended or inadvertent (Fischer et al.,
2016; Pearson et al., 2001), but this is an irrelevant question. What is
relevant is that experienced incivility, regardless of intention, damages
the workplace climate. Therefore, HR managers in the local government
sector must develop effective policies and practices to address experi-
enced incivility. For example, a number of local governments have intro-
duced policies related to ‘vexatious’, ‘unreasonable’, and ‘challenging’
behavior in the workplace. These policies empower employees to con-
structively respond to such behavior by providing feedback about inap-
propriate behaviors to instigators, discontinuing interactions following a
warning, systems to report uncivil treatment, and policies related to inci-
dent escalation (City of Albany, 2020; Shire of West Arthur, 2021). Such
HR policies support employees by clearly defining uncivil behaviors and
provide employees with practical resources to address incivility. By focus-
ing on repeated, long-term uncivil behaviors, rather than singular, one-off
occurrences, public administrators can minimize experienced incivility
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Moreover, reducing uncivil interactions
among local government employees will benefit the public sector by, over
time, preventing the erosion of organizational norms around positive
interactions, reducing the likelihood of employee disengagement and pre-
senteeism, and obviating a decline in workplace performance and an
increase in turnover intent (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Successfully
addressing persistent workplace incivility, coupled with robust policies
aimed at building a culture of job autonomy, will support the mental and
physical health of employees and deliver benefits to local government
and increase downstream taxpayer satisfaction in the services provided.

Limitations and Future research directions

As with any study, our results should be considered in light of some lim-
itations. The usual caveats apply as with any other cross-sectional survey
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 579

design. First, although the moderated mediation model goes some way in
unpacking the mechanism through which job autonomy is associated with
physical pain, the cross-sectional nature of the survey implies that no
claims of causality can be made. Second, both the non-random nature of
the survey, as well as the single sector from which the research partici-
pants were drawn, limit the generalizability of the findings. For example,
our sample is not racially diverse as 96% of the participants were white—
even though this is an accurate reflection of the racial demographics of the
sector. Future studies should consider replicating our findings using data
from more racially diverse samples. Third, omitted variable bias is an
ever-present concern, especially given the myriad of causes of physical
pain that were not included in our models. There are several opportunities
for future research to incorporate other important variables, which, due to
our sample size and practical issues related to survey length, were unable
to be included and tested. It would also be of interest to replicate the
present study in the private sector to determine whether public service
motivation (Perry, 1996) has an impact on the findings.

Conclusions
Given that physical pain is a significant financial liability and a public health
concern, what with one out of every five employees suffering from it chron-
ically (Dahlhamer et al., 2018), it would seem sensible for local governments
to take proactive steps to reduce its prevalence. As demonstrated in our
research, the delegation of job autonomy, whereby task discretion and
responsibility are granted to employees, can have beneficial effects on mental
and physical health. This does not mean that HR managers give up the
prerogative to manage, but rather that they should empower local govern-
ment employees, where possible, to participate in decision-making. However,
our study demonstrates that the potential beneficial effect of enhanced job
autonomy on subjective health is conditional on the extent to which employ-
ees experience incivility. That is, for the benefits of job autonomy for
employee health to be realized, HR managers must take proactive steps to
mitigate experienced incivility inasmuch as its presence offsets any health
benefits from more autonomous work arrangements.

Note
1. The pattern of results remained unchanged upon the exclusion of control vari-
ables. That is, mental health mediated the negative relationship between autonomy
and physical pain (B = -.10, SE = .04, 95%CI [-.18, -.04]). Experienced incivility
continued to significantly moderate the relationship between autonomy and mental
health (B = -.31, SE = .09, t = -3.51, p = .001). Experienced incivility did not
580 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

significantly moderate the relationship between mental health and physical pain (B
= .20, SE = .14, t = 1.41, p = .16). The index of moderated mediation continued
to be significant (Index = .13, 95% CI = [.04, .23]) for the first-stage moderation,
whereas the second-stage moderated mediation continued to be non-significant
(Index = .05, 95% CI = [-.02, .13]).
Results of a series of one-way ANOVAs compared CEOs to non-CEOs. Specifically,
CEOs (M = 3.97, SD = .59) reported significantly higher levels of autonomy than
non-CEOs (M = 3.75, SD = .83), F(1,247) = 5.32, p = .02, η2 = .02. CEOs (M = 1.60,
SD = .73) reported significantly higher levels of experienced incivility than
non-CEOs (M = 1.42, SD = .51), F(1,247) = 5.54, p = .02, η2 = .02. Non-CEOs
(M = 2.16, SD = .89) reported significantly higher levels of physical ill-health rela-
tive to CEOs (M = 1.91, SD = .87), F(1,234) = 4.44, p = .04, η2 = .02. Finally, there
was no statistical difference in reported mental health between CEOs (M = 3.73,
SD = .69) and non-CEOs (M = 3.74, SD = .57), F(1,259) = .03, p = .86.

Author contributions
Timming: conceptualization, formal analysis, and writing (review and editing). Carpini:
methodology, data curation, and writing (review and editing). Hirst: writing. Tian: writ-
ing (review and editing). Notebaert: methodology and writing (review and editing).

Ethical approval
Ethical Approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia Human Ethics
Office, RA/4/20/4807.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
We thank Local Government Professionals Western Australia for funding this research.

ORCID
Joseph A. Carpini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4694-2672
Amy Wei Tian http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6197-9513

Data availability statement

The data used in this research are available from the lead author upon request.

References
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). (2018). Local government workforce
and future skills report Australia. https://alga.asn.au/local-government-workfoce-an
d-future-skills-report-australia
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 581

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.
org/10.2307/259136
Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in govern-
ment. University of California Press.
Baumeister, V. M., Kuen, L. P., Bruckes, M., & Schewe, G. (2021). The relationship of
work-related ICT use with well-being, incorporating the role of resources and de-
mands: A meta-analysis. SAGE Open, 11(4), 215824402110615. https://doi.org/10.1177/
21582440211061560
Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommenda-
tions for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283. https://doi.
org/10.1111/peps.12103
Birnbaum, H. G., White, A. G., Schiller, M., Waldman, T., Cleveland, J. M., & Roland,
C. L. (2011). Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in
the United States. Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.), 12(4), 657–667. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01075.x
Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595–614. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317905X26822
Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R., & Gallacher, D. (2006). Survey of
chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European
Journal of Pain (London, England), 10(4), 287–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.
2005.06.009
Carpini, J. A., & Parker, S. K. (2016). Job rotation. In A. Wilkinson & S. Johnstone
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human resource management. Edward Elgar.
Carpini, J. A., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2017). A look back and a leap forward:
A review and synthesis of the individual work performance literature. Academy of
Management Annals, 11(2), 825–885. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0151
Chung-Yan, G. A. (2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job
satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019823
Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Degrees of free-
dom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizational Research
Methods, 20(3), 350–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116676345
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1),
64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Research on work-related stress.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.
Cuijpers, P., Smits, N., Donker, T., Ten Have, M., & de Graaf, R. (2009). Screening for
mood and anxiety disorders with the five-item, the three-item, and the two-item
Mental Health Inventory. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychres.2008.05.012
Dahlhamer, J., Lucas, J., Zelaya, C., Nahin, R., Mackey, S., DeBar, L., Kerns, R., Von
Korff, M., Porter, L., & Helmick, C. (2018). Prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact
chronic pain among adults - United States. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 67(36), 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6736a2
Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012639
582 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Not all autonomy is the
same. Different dimensions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement
& innovative work behavior. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &
Service Industries, 26(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20666
Deloitte. (2019). The cost of pain in Australia. https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/
economics/articles/cost-pain-australia.html
Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K. H. (2012). Lagged mediator effects of self-control demands on
psychological strain and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 85(4), 556–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02058.x
Dwyer, D. J., & Fox, M. L. (2000). The moderating role of hostility in the relationship
between enriched jobs and health. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1086–1096.
Fahrenberg, J. (1995). Somatic complaints in the German population. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 39(7), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)00151-0
Fasanya, B. K., & Dada, E. A. (2016). Workplace violence and safety issues in long-term
medical care facilities: Nurses’ perspectives. Safety and Health at Work, 7(2), 97–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2015.11.002
Fischer, T., Van Reemst, L., & De Jong, J. (2016). Workplace aggression toward local
government employees: Target characteristics. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 29(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2015-0100
Fjell, Y., Alexanderson, K., Karlqvist, L., & Bildt, C. (2007). Self-reported musculoskeletal
pain and working conditions among employees in the Swedish public sector. Work,
28(1), 33–46.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public sector employees to im-
prove performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration,
41(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009355943
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/315098
Fried, Y., Laurence, G. A., Shirom, A., Melamed, S., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I.
(2013). The relationship between job enrichment and abdominal obesity: A longitudi-
nal field study of apparently healthy individuals. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 18(4), 458–465.
Gao, J. (2015). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: Some
lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 86–96.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1704
Gaskin, D. J., & Richard, P. (2012). The economic costs of pain in the United States. The
Journal of Pain, 13(8), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.009
Glaser, J., Seubert, C., Hornung, S., & Herbig, B. (2015). The Impact of Learning
Demands, Work-Related Resources, and Job Stressors on Creative Performance and
Health. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/
a000127
Gilin Oore, D. E. B. R. A., Leblanc, D., Day, A., Leiter, M. P., Spence Laschinger, S., H.
K., Price, S. L., & Latimer, M. (2010). When respect deteriorates: Incivility as a mod-
erator of the stressor–strain relationship among hospital workers. Journal of Nursing
Management, 18(8), 878–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01139.x
Grant, B., & Drew, J. (2017). Local government in Australia. Springer.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of
relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047327
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 583

Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a

new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test
of the conservation of resources model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5),
1134–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).
Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resourc-
es theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206314527130
Han, S., Harold, C. M., Oh, I. S., Kim, J. K., & Agolli, A. (2022). A meta-analysis inte-
grating 20 years of workplace incivility research: Antecedents, consequences, and bound-
ary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.
1002/job.2568
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process anal-
ysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed). Guilford Press.
Hershcovis, M. S, & Barling, J. J. (2007). Towards a relational model of workplace ag-
gression. In. Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C. and R. Klimoski (Eds.), Research Companion
to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms (pp. 268–285).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3),
337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health,
and resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping
(pp.127–147). Oxford University Press.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of
resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequenc-
es. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1),
103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Holmlund, L., Tinnerholm Ljungberg, H., Bültmann, U., Holmgren, K., & Björk
Brämberg, E. (2022). Exploring reasons for sick leave due to common mental disor-
ders from the perspective of employees and managers – what has gender got to do
with it? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 17(1),
2054081. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2022.2054081
Hubert, A. B., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2001). Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and
mobbing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 415–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000799
Holmgreen, L., Tirone, V., Gerhart, J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2017). Conservation of resourc-
es theory. The Handbook of Stress and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice, 2(7),
443–457.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational,
social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5),
1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Hurley, J., Hutchinson, M., Bradbury, J., & Browne, G. (2016). Nexus between preventive
bullying, and mental health: Qualitative findings from the experiences of Australian
public sector employees. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(1), 12–18.
https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12190
584 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

Jacobsen, C. B., & Bøgh Andersen, L. (2017). Leading public service organizations: How
to obtain high employee self-efficacy and organizational performance. Public
Management Review, 19(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1153705
Jarman, L., Martin, A., Venn, A., Otahal, P., Taylor, R., Teale, B., & Sanderson, K. (2014).
Prevalence and correlates of psychological distress in a large and diverse public sector
workforce: Baseline results from Partnering Healthy@Work. BMC Public Health,
14(1293), 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-125
Kabat-Farr, D., Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2018). The emotional aftermath of
incivility: Anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment. International
Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000045
Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Reizer, A. (2017). Supervisors’ autonomy support as a predictor of
job performance trajectories. Applied Psychology, 66(3), 468–486. https://doi.
org/10.1111/apps.12094
Khubchandani, J., & Price, J. H. (2015). Workplace harassment and morbity among US
adults: Results from the National Health Interview Survey. Journal of Community
Health, 40(3), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-014-9971-2
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the
powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being.
Psychological Science, 24(3), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612450891
Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Thomson, L., Griffiths, A., Cox, T., & Pentti, J. (1997).
Psychosocial factors predicting employee sickness absence during economic decline.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
82.6.858
Kowalski, T. H., & Loretto, W. (2017). Well-being and HRM in the changing workplace.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2229–2255. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1345205
Liu, X., Yang, S., & Yao, Z. (2020). Silent counterattack: The impact of workplace bully-
ing on employee silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 572236. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.572236
Lovallo, W. R. (2016). Stress and health: Biological and psychological interactions (3rd ed).
Sage.
Malec, J., Cayner, J. J., Harvey, R. F., & Timming, R. C. (1981). Pain management:
Long-term follow-up of an inpatient program. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 62(8), 369–372.
Marcatto, F., Colautti, L., Larese Filon, F., Luis, O., Di Blas, L., Cavallero, C., & Ferrante,
D. (2016). Work-related stress risk factors and health outcomes in public sector em-
ployees. Safety Science, 89, 274–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.003
McBeth, J., Harkness, E. F., Silman, A. J., & MacFarlane, G. J. (2003). The role of work-
place low-level mechanical trauma, posture and environment in the onset of physical
widespread pain. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 42(12), 1486–1494. https://doi.
org/10.1093/rheumatology/keg399
McNamee, P., & Mendolia, S. (2014). The effect of physical pain on life satisfaction:
Evidence from Australian data. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 121, 65–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.019
Melzack, R. (1999). From the gate to the neuromatrix. Pain, 82(Supplement 1), S121–
S126. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00145-1
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the
nature of work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 585

Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017).
Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 31(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1
080/02678373.2017.1304463
Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work
make you sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physi-
cal symptoms. Work & Stress, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.
569175
North, F., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., & Marmot, M. G. (1993).
Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: The Whitehall II Study.
BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 306(6874), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.
6874.361
Park, H. I., Jacob, A. C., Wagner, S. H., & Baiden, M. (2014). Job control and burnout:
A meta-analytic test of the Conservation of Resources model. Applied Psychology,
63(4), 607–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12008
Park, R., & Searcy, D. (2012). Job autonomy as a predictor of mental well-being: The
moderating role of quality-competitive environment. Journal of Business and Psychology,
27(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9244-3
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking work-
place incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0090-2616(00)00019-x
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout conven-
tion: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00187267015411001
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging
your business and what to do about it. Penguin.
Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct
reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1),
5–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias
in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
120710-100452
Purtle, J., Nelson, K. L., Yang, Y., Langellier, B., Stankov, I., & Roux, A. V. D. (2019).
Urban–rural differences in older adult depression: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of comparative studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(4),
603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.11.008
Rayner, J., & Lawton, A. (2018). Are we being served? Emotional labour in local gov-
ernment in Victoria, Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(3),
360–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500-12282
Roquelaure, Y., Ha, C., Leclerc, A., Touranchet, A., Sauteron, M., Melchior, M., Imbernon,
E., & Goldberg, M. (2006). Epidemiologic surveillance of upper-extremity musculo-
skeletal disorders in the working population. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(5), 765–
778. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22222
Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2013). How does job insecu-
rity relate to self-reported job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a
longitudinal sample. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4),
522–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12020
586 A. R. TIMMING ET AL.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models
with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3),
456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family
support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.10.4.100
Timming, A. R., Notebaert, L., & Carpini, J. A. (2019). From workplace stress to work-
place wellness: An assessment of the health and well-being of local government Chief
Executive Officers in WA., The University of. Western Australia.
Tsuno, K., Kawakami, N., Shimazu, A., Shimada, K., Inoue, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2017).
Workplace incivility in Japan: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the
modified Work Incivility Scale. Journal of Occupational Health, 59(3), 237–246. https://
doi.org/10.1539/joh.16-0196-OA
Vargas, E. A., Mahalingam, R., & Marshall, R. A. (2021). Witnessed incivility and per-
ceptions of patients and visitors in hospitals. Journal of Patient Experience, 8,
237437352110280. https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735211028092
Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., & Guenole, N. (2018).
Placing job characteristics in context: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in
job characteristics since 1975. Journal of Management, 44(1), 352–386. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920631665454
Wood, S., Daniels, K., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2020). Use of work–nonwork supports and
employee well-being: The mediating roles of job demands, job control, supportive
management and work–nonwork conflict. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 31(14), 1793–1824. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1423102
Wong, C. W., Kwok, C. S., Narain, A., Gulati, M., Mihalidou, A. S., Wu, P., Alasnag, M.,
Myint, P. K., & Mamas, M. A. (2018). Marital status and risk of cardiovascular dis-
eases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 104(23),
1937–1948. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313005
Yao, J., Lim, S., Guo, C. Y., Ou, A. Y., & Ng, J. W. X. (2022). Experienced incivility in
the workplace: A meta-analytical review of its construct validity and nomological net-
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 193–220.
Yao, Z., Luo, J., & Zhang, X. (2020a). Gossip is a fearful thing: The impact of negative
workplace gossip on knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7),
1755–1775. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0264
Yao, Z., Zhang, X., Luo, J., & Huang, H. (2020b). Offense is the best defense: The impact
of workplace bullying on knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(3),
675–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0755
Zhu, H., Lyu, Y., & Ye, Y. (2021). The impact of customer incivility on employees’ fam-
ily undermining: A conservation of resources perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 38(3), 1061–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09688-8